Constitutional Law and Healthcare

delldude

Veteran
Oct 29, 2002
28,899
6,003
Downrange
This was sent to me for review:

The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney


Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas

This fellow has a lot to say here:

But of course the Liberals will say its all poppycock....Obama and company wouldn't do that or would they or are they?

Tell me of Republican Denial Disease........ :lol:
 
This was sent to me for review:
Tell me of Republican Denial Disease........ :lol:
Evidently this has been sent to many people.

Here is some of it discussed for what it is:

P.S. The Kitchen Sink

...Oh yes, almost forgot. Connelly also spools out a list of evils supposedly caused by the bill, providing support for none of them. We’ve dispatched many of these assertions before. He claims that the bill provides for:

* "…rationing of health care," especially for seniors. That’s false, as we’ve explained many times.
* "…free health care for illegal immigrants." Actually, it prohibits illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies for their care. They could still get care at any hospital emergency rooms that would treat them, which is true currently, too.
* "…free abortion services." It’s true that private insurance purchased with the help of federal subsidies could cover abortions, as could a proposed "public option" plan run by the government. But neither would be free. The bill also says abortions would have to be paid for with money from policyholders’ premium payments, and not taxpayer money.
* "…probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession." That’s wrong. H.R. 3200, the bill Connelly is writing about, continues "conscience" provisions in current law that allow health care workers to decline to provide abortions.

As for Connelly’s assertions that the bill will "eventually force private insurance companies out of business" and "put everyone in a government-run system," they are Connelly’s speculation, and there is nothing in the bill to that effect. Likewise the claim that "ultimately" all personal health care decisions will be made by "federal bureaucrats." Connelly also says that "hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled." That too is conjecture. To some degree, that’s what happens today under Medicare, though Connelly doesn’t mention it. The bill wouldn’t take it beyond that program.

– Viveca Novak
Sources

Dellinger, Walter and H. Jefferson Powell. "Constitutionality of Health Care Reform." Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice. 29 Oct 1993.

Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381(1940).

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

Hall, Mark. "Legal Solutions in Health Reform: The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance." O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University.

Rivkin, David B., Jr., and Lee A. Casey. "Mandatory Insurance is Unconstitutional." The Wall Street Journal. 18 Sept 2009.

Davey, Monica. "In Some States, a Push to Ban Mandate on Insurance." The New York Times. 29 Sept 2009.

Seelye, Katharine Q. "A Constitutional Debate Over a Health Care Mandate." The New York Times. 26 Sept 2009.

Posted by Viveca Novak on Friday, October 2, 2009 at 11:43 am
Filed under Ask FactCheck · Tagged with commerce clause, constitutional, health care, supreme court
source
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #4
Evidently this has been sent to many people.

Here is some of it discussed for what it is:

source

Obviously you overlooked this key wording.....

Legal experts agree that requiring citizens to buy something is a novel concept that has not been tested in the courts.

And this:

We may find out. There’s little doubt that if the health care legislation passes and requires citizens to buy health insurance, it will be challenged in court. The final pronouncement may well be up to the nine justices who preside in the chamber right across the street from the Capitol.

Say what you wish but a large number of this administration and the President are on record in many areas of printed and internet media reflecting their stated goals of which Mr. Connelly writes.

And most of the Constitutional issues he raises are quite valid.
 
Obviously you overlooked this key wording.....



Say what you wish but a large number of this administration and the President are on record in many areas of printed and internet media reflecting their stated goals of which Mr. Connelly writes.
Remember that our President is also a Constitutional Attorney, and used to teach Constitutional Law, prior to his current job.

I have no doubt that when this bill is passed in the Senate, then comes out of conference committee and is signed by the President, there will be many just waiting for the chance to challenge much of it.

Of course that is what happens with all legislation. That is why we have three branches of government.

I love the USA! (As do all the lawyers who will get paid to do the challenging)...
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #6
I find fact check to be left biased for one thing......wasn't Annenberg one of Obama's 'boys' ?

Wasn't Obama Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?

* "…free health care for illegal immigrants." Actually, it prohibits illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies for their care. They could still get care at any hospital emergency rooms that would treat them, which is true currently, too.

Yes it may say that but it has already been to SCOTUS and turned over.

* "…rationing of health care," especially for seniors. That’s false, as we’ve explained many times.

And they're going to cut 500 billion from Medicare and not limit services...I mean ration?

* "…free abortion services."

It completely escapes those on the left that if they kiss Ben Nelson's butt to garner his vote that in no way whatsoever will the dems once again introduce this provision?LOL

As for Connelly’s assertions that the bill will "eventually force private insurance companies out of business" and "put everyone in a government-run system," they are Connelly’s speculation, and there is nothing in the bill to that effect.

Jan Schakowsy on single payer:

… next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health care option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer. [applause] My single payer friends, he was right!

Obama on private insurance:

So you tell me...sounds like Connelly is right on............
 
I find fact check to be left biased for one thing......wasn't Annenberg one of Obama's 'boys' ?
Au contraire. Walter Annenberg bankrolled Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential primaries campaign. The Reagans often celebrated New Year's Eve with the Annenbergs at their Rancho Mirage, CA, estate.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #8
Au contraire. Walter Annenberg bankrolled Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential primaries campaign. The Reagans often celebrated New Year's Eve with the Annenbergs at their Rancho Mirage, CA, estate.

That was then this is now..........ours de monsieur........... :eek:
 
Senator Nelson and the rest of Congress are a bunch of sellouts. Next year vote for anyone but the bunch of losers we have in there now :down: ............................ Could it be worse?
 
Senator Nelson and the rest of Congress are a bunch of sellouts. Next year vote for anyone but the bunch of losers we have in there now :down: ............................ Could it be worse?
I love the term limit champions.

Let us look at an aircraft mechanic that has 8 years experience. It easily takes that long to become a fairly proficient line AMT for a major airline. At that point he/she has finally learned enough to be able to troubleshoot the multiple fleet types with some expedience.

At that point, why not throw them out. They have become highly paid (back in the day), and burdensome.

They are way too familiar with the "system" to be able to be productive. They will just use it.

Why not throw them out and bring in some new low paid hard chargers and start all over again.

Makes sense, huh? :blink:
 
I love the term limit champions.

Let us look at an aircraft mechanic that has 8 years experience. It easily takes that long to become a fairly proficient line AMT for a major airline. At that point he/she has finally learned enough to be able to troubleshoot the multiple fleet types with some expedience.

At that point, why not throw them out. They have become highly paid (back in the day), and burdensome.

They are way too familiar with the "system" to be able to be productive. They will just use it.

Why not throw them out and bring in some new low paid hard chargers and start all over again.

Makes sense, huh? :blink:

Hey Einstein, since when does AMT's get elected to represent their constituents that have an effect on what they can or cannot do? Ever hear of the word "relevance"? May want to brush up on that in your aspiring legal career.
 
I love the term limit champions.

Let us look at an aircraft mechanic that has 8 years experience. It easily takes that long to become a fairly proficient line AMT for a major airline. At that point he/she has finally learned enough to be able to troubleshoot the multiple fleet types with some expedience.

At that point, why not throw them out. They have become highly paid (back in the day), and burdensome.

They are way too familiar with the "system" to be able to be productive. They will just use it.

Why not throw them out and bring in some new low paid hard chargers and start all over again.

Makes sense, huh? :blink:


I see your point and agree to an extent. Aside from the COTUS issues (I don't think the COTUS supports the concept of term limits) I do not like the idea of them (Congress) getting so comfy in office. Congress has become more of a career rather than a service to ones country (civil servant). Due to the salary they are making and the benefits they enjoy after service, they are motivated to stay in office and by self interest, not the interest of the people they serve. Given the cost it takes to get a senate seat (several million in most states) they are bought and paid for as well.

I am in favor of term limits but I don't think the COTUS will let it fly.
 
Hey Einstein, since when does AMT's get elected to represent their constituents that have an effect on what they can or cannot do? Ever hear of the word "relevance"? May want to brush up on that in your aspiring legal career.
It is called similitude.

I am perplexed with your fixation on my choice of higher education.

If you don't like it, so be it.
 
Hey Einstein, since when does AMT's get elected to represent their constituents that have an effect on what they can or cannot do? Ever hear of the word "relevance"?
Learning how to do a job knows no boundaries.

Learning how to navigate the way the United States Government works takes time as does any other complex career.

It makes no sense to throw them out after a certain time limit. If the electorate does not like the job the person is doing, then all that needs to be done is to vote for someone other than the incumbent.
 
I love the term limit champions.

Let us look at an aircraft mechanic that has 8 years experience. It easily takes that long to become a fairly proficient line AMT for a major airline. At that point he/she has finally learned enough to be able to troubleshoot the multiple fleet types with some expedience.

Makes sense, huh? :blink:

8 years of experience for a AMT is good since they will use the knowledge to do a good job. 8 years for a politician not so good, since they will use their knowledge of how to work the system for their own benefit.
 
Back
Top